MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/43: Difference between revisions
(archiving per user request (created less than 3 days ago)) |
(archiving) |
||
Line 193: | Line 193: | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
I'm withdrawing; please archive. Thanks! {{user|ZonkMario64}} | I'm withdrawing; please archive. Thanks! {{user|ZonkMario64}} | ||
---- | |||
===Add 'Edit' Button To Navigation Templates=== | |||
<span style="color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:150%">PASSED 19-0</span> | |||
Yes, I know, [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_32#Add_a_Navbar_to_all_Navigation_Templates|we've already had a proposal about this]], but my views on the subject have changed. Sometimes, when I want to improve on a navigation template, like adding a link or fixing a redirect link, I first need to hit edit of the page I find the navigation template at, find the name of the template, then find the name of that template in the list of templates listed when you're editing the page, and that's just plain tedious. The reason it failed was because "you should have multiple steps away from editing a Navitagion Template", and wording which generally reflected on assuming bad faith in edits. | |||
<big>''"But if we add this, then there will be too much vandalism to fight."'' | |||
<br>–You, after reading this.</big> | |||
This line of reasoning is nonsensical on so many layers it's not even funny. If we assume there is going to be vandalism just because we make something ''easier'' to access, then are we really assuming edits are made in good faith? It's downright disgusting that this is even something that's being thought of. Yes, this is something that other Wikis do. It's something other Wikis do '''better''' than the Super Mario Wiki does at this moment. Therefore, we need to step our game up, and upgrade past this "''if we make things easier to access then everyone will edit stuff and this is bad''"-kind of think that ultimately assumes editing in bad faith. Besides, if someone vandalises a navigation template, and there ''is'' an 'edit' button when you view the template as part of a page, it's going to be slightly ''easier'' to access the template and revert any vandalism done to the template, ''even without going to the recent changes''. I think that's kind of neat. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|RandomYoshi}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': August 26, 2015, 23:59 GMT. | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|RandomYoshi}} – Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Glowsquid}} &ndash The reasoning provided in the previous proposal is bad, and it'd save everyone a lot of tedium. If vandalism is somehow more of a concern with this set of wiki features, just autoconfirm them | |||
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} Yeah I don't know what I was smoking when I said "no one uses it". These things get updated like all the time, whenever a new game gets released or so. I've always disagreed with that reasoning in the first place though, so there goes my only oppose I had. | |||
#{{User|Bazooka Mario}} The opposition's reasoning in the previous proposal is ridiculous and basically a variation of "if it ain't broke, then don't fix it", which is a really annoying thought-terminating argument. Their argument: it's too much like Wikipedia and it's ugly and distracting and it worked without it before. Rule of thumb: websites should be designed for the convenience of its readers, so "it's ugly and distracting anyway" isn't a strong argument (I don't agree that it's "ugly"). My sister is the most reasonable, but it would be nice to have something so inconsequential as easy template editing. | |||
#{{User|Tails777}} I've always found it a pain to try and figure out what the name of those templates were. Straight forward links leading straight to editing them make things a whole lot easier. Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Time Turner}} Per all; this would be a time-saver like you wouldn't believe. | |||
#{{User|Pyro Guy}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Walkazo}} - I'd ''still'' say a full navbar (like last proposal) would be ugly and unnecessary (most pages don't have talk pages at all and histories rarely need immediate consulting), but just an "[edit]" link seems reasonable and straightforward (no need for code letters and hover-over text), plus it'd balance out the "[show]", so sure. | |||
#{{User|Boo4761}} Per Time Turner | |||
#{{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} - Per all. | |||
#{{User|Binarystep}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Pseudo-dino}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Chocolate Mario}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Magikrazy}} Yes! I hate this current system. Per everyone. | |||
#{{User|PowerKamek}} Per everyone! | |||
#{{User|ZonkMario64}} I haven't edited for quite a while, but I really don't want to look through bazillions of long lists of templates just to get another list. Also, per all. | |||
#{{User|Peach Skywalker}} Per all! And because this is essential | |||
#{{User|3D Player 2010}} Per all after thinking about it for a while. | |||
#{{User|Lemon Meringue}} Per everyone. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
====Comments==== | |||
@Bazooka Mario: Don't you mean "websites should be designed for their readers rather than their editors"? You've got that mixed up. Anyway, adding an "edit" template there benefits readers, as it could help point them to the template that needs to be fixed/updated at a convenient time. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 23:23, 18 August 2015 (EDT) | |||
:I got it mixed up, yeah. *blush* {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 23:30, 18 August 2015 (EDT) | |||
I'm mixed on this. On one hand, I think that we should add something on these templates. On the other hand, I'd rather it be a view link button rather than an edit button. {{User:Kart Player 2011/sig}} 20:21, 19 August 2015 (EDT) | |||
:But if you just wanna look at the template, you can do so on the article it's on: most people will only go to the template if they want to edit it, so it makes more sense to have a link to the editing interface, and then from there the few others can just make one more click to view the template. And if you mean you just want the template name, you can already get that from the editing interface - or simply by hovering your mouse over the edit link without clicking it at all, for that matter... - {{User:Walkazo/sig}} 20:32, 19 August 2015 (EDT) | |||
::Finally, just another method, you can just pinpoint the template name at the search bar by typing "template:". I don't see the need for a view-only button. {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 21:12, 19 August 2015 (EDT) | |||
:::As a final addition to this conversation, when you hit 'edit', you'll be immediately taken to a place where the 'view' and 'talk' functions are available by a single click, just by viewing the tabs at the top of the page. It's very convenient that way. {{User:RandomYoshi/sig}} 20:33, 22 August 2015 (EDT) | |||
---- | ---- |
Revision as of 21:26, August 26, 2015
Change the way rule number 9 of the proposal system worksDELETED BY PROPOSER So, another proposal to remove this rule was made that was just now vetoed by an administrator. The idea in this proposal is not to remove the rule but instead change the way it works to make it more fair and less objectionable. So as of now, this rule is in effect:
I think that the rule could use a few changes that could keep much of its original intent intact while making it more accurate towards what the majority of users want. So I propose we replace that rule with this new rule:
I think the changed rule would be better than both the original rule and just flat out deleting the rule for the following reasons:
Proposer: Kart Player 2011 (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsWait, in proposals with three choices or more, if their deadlines are extended, do you propose removing the option with the least amount of votes? That sounds so convoluted. Even the wording in that is hard to read. The bolded part is one sentence! Anyhow, if there are two change options clashing and rivaling each other in terms of votes, proceeding with one change or the other will displease a sizeable group and that's not democratic. Having the proposal fail after breaking through several extended deadlines definitely means "no consensus has been reached, so no changes will be made". It's a failsafe measure at this point, and it gives the opportunity for further discussion and refining the proposal further. Not to mention, it wears on people's patience to see a proposal get extended, like, three times, so casting it off is good, elaborated previously. In super drawn-out proposals, it's safer to kill them eventually than to take questionable and controversial action even if the outcome is dead tied. It's the reason FAs have a time limit, too. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 14:17, 21 June 2015 (EDT) @Ghost Jam: I tried my best to remove the objectionable pieces of the other proposal that caused it to be vetoed and take into consideration things said by Walkazo in my discussion with her in the other proposal to make it not fall into any objections that she made there. @Bazooka Mario, I specifically said in the proposal that the do nothing option would stay to the final two no matter what and before then, only options suggesting change could be removed so if there is a case of two change options clashing and rivaling each other in terms of votes, and people voting for one of the changes would rather have nothing done, they will always have the chance to just move their votes towards doing nothing. - Kart Player 2011 (talk) @Walkazo, just veto it now then in this case to get it over with. I tried my best to fix the problems that got the other proposal vetoed but I guess in this case, I didn't do enough so I guess you should just veto this proposal now. I'll talk about it more with you in user talk page if I feel the need to. I'm sorry for my mistake. - Kart Player 2011 (talk)
Lessen Crossover CoverageDELETED BY PROPOSER According to the current Coverage rule, crossover games like Super Smash Bros. and Mario & Sonic have full coverage. However, this means that we have to cover all of the content from Super Smash Bros., which can cause us to compete with our NIWA Affiliate Smash Wiki. Look at all the Smash content. Shouldn't we focus more on Mario? So I have a proposal:
Proposer: SeanWheeler (talk) Support
Oppose
Revise another wayCommentsSo how do you suggest those percentages are calculated..? --Glowsquid (talk) 23:22, 22 June 2015 (EDT)
@SeanWheeler, SmashWiki also is very technical about the Smash content. They have tier lists, tourneys, professional smash players, project m, advanced techniques, how viable a character is...etc. If like to learn what wave-dashing, star kos, wall of pains, etc. are, then SmashWiki covers it very well. We don't go that far. We cover like only the official thingamabobs. Ray Trace(T|C) 03:37, 23 June 2015 (EDT)
"Shouldn't we focus more on Mario?" is a moot point. 5 Smash Bros. games and 9 Mario & Sonic games out of the hundreds of other pure Mario games. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 16:06, 23 June 2015 (EDT)
Change intro standards for mainspace ex-subpagesDON'T CHANGE 1-7 See this proposal for some background. This proposal seems a bit minor, but as a Mario Wiki, we strive to inform, not point out the obvious. That being said, the intros for the gallery space and other subpages are very unprofessional, as their only purpose, aside from stating the obvious, serves as filler text (seriously, one big reason we have such text is that "blank space is kind of an eyesore"). The most useful thing it does is provide a link to its main article. Now, I recall proposing replacing the intro text and turning gallery space into subspace, but I wasn't aware that it would violate our subpages policy, and I'm not willing to drastically alter an established policy just for the sake of changing the intro text a bit. One solution is to replace the current intros with a simple {{main}}. As for related ex-subpages, we can use {{articleabout}}. Articleabout, however, is less than ideal, but there's nothing in the way of creating a new template that link to related ex-subpages without saying that a page of images of Mario is a page of images of Mario. Not only does it seem more professional, it simplifies our introductions so users don't have to continuously refer to a policy that specifically outlines how each intro should be worded. Besides, our Subpages Policy is outdated, since galleries now include a few media files (see Baby Mario). Anyway, another solution is to create an entirely new template which focuses on ex-subpages and links to related ex-subpages only when the related parameters are used. This would make it a combination of {{main}} and {{articleabout}}, but altering it to make it more presentable. The new template would be something like this: Main article: Template:Fakelink Further suggestions and alterations to this template would be appreciated, as it's only a prototype and I suppose more seasoned template makers can have a hand on this, provided they support, of course. So, to sum it up, the advantages of using a template would be replacing filler text with a more useful and simple link, and it would simplify our Subpages Policy, the intro aspect. Finally, this applies to mainly the mainspace ex-subpages, which is what this whole Subspaces Policy is about in the first place. Of course, exceptions apply, but if they're rare and not intrusive, the proposed changes wouldn't undermine the wiki. Proposer: Bazooka Mario (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsHuh, I'd expect someone to say "there's no problem with it, so no change". I think a little change goes some way, though, and my proposal is changing just for the sake of concision and trimming out filler text. As for the copy-paste thing, it's still more of a hassle to access these pages to copy-paste them than inputting a template that generates automated text anyhow. I really don't find those intro texts necessary other than providing a link to the main page, hence this proposal. It's not "fixing what isn't broken", it's improving/refining what we have right now, even if "readers won't care anyway". It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 22:02, 23 June 2015 (EDT) Make a page for Rhythm Tengoku: The Best +CREATE 12-0 MarioWiki:Coverage states that pages for "Guest Appearance" games need to be voted on before being created. That rule was broken for the Punch-Out!! page, but revisiting that is kind of a waste so w/e. Anyway, Rhythm Tengoku: The Best+, the latest game in the Rhythm Heaven series, has two hidden levels that feature all the main characters from the warioware series. I think the game deserves a page for the following reasons.
Proposer: Glowsquid (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsAdd direct links on star icons for 64/Galaxy/Galaxy 2DELETED BY PROPOSER I random'd to a SMG galaxy page earlier today, and rolled over the star icon; clicking would have led me to the file page. So, I got an idea: add direct links to their respective stars. This idea came from the map that exists on pages like this which provide a direct page link to that location. What I mean is that clicking on a star icon in the "summary box," as I call it, would take the reader to the section they are looking for, making the need for excessive scrolling nonexistent. Proposer: ZonkMario64 (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsI'm withdrawing; please archive. Thanks! ZonkMario64 (talk) PASSED 19-0 Yes, I know, we've already had a proposal about this, but my views on the subject have changed. Sometimes, when I want to improve on a navigation template, like adding a link or fixing a redirect link, I first need to hit edit of the page I find the navigation template at, find the name of the template, then find the name of that template in the list of templates listed when you're editing the page, and that's just plain tedious. The reason it failed was because "you should have multiple steps away from editing a Navitagion Template", and wording which generally reflected on assuming bad faith in edits. "But if we add this, then there will be too much vandalism to fight."
This line of reasoning is nonsensical on so many layers it's not even funny. If we assume there is going to be vandalism just because we make something easier to access, then are we really assuming edits are made in good faith? It's downright disgusting that this is even something that's being thought of. Yes, this is something that other Wikis do. It's something other Wikis do better than the Super Mario Wiki does at this moment. Therefore, we need to step our game up, and upgrade past this "if we make things easier to access then everyone will edit stuff and this is bad"-kind of think that ultimately assumes editing in bad faith. Besides, if someone vandalises a navigation template, and there is an 'edit' button when you view the template as part of a page, it's going to be slightly easier to access the template and revert any vandalism done to the template, even without going to the recent changes. I think that's kind of neat. Proposer: RandomYoshi (talk) Support
OpposeComments@Bazooka Mario: Don't you mean "websites should be designed for their readers rather than their editors"? You've got that mixed up. Anyway, adding an "edit" template there benefits readers, as it could help point them to the template that needs to be fixed/updated at a convenient time. Ray Trace(T|C) 23:23, 18 August 2015 (EDT) I'm mixed on this. On one hand, I think that we should add something on these templates. On the other hand, I'd rather it be a view link button rather than an edit button. 3D Player 2010 20:21, 19 August 2015 (EDT)
|